Original source: mfers Chinese community

secondary title

KeyTakeaways

• NFT is not the work itself, nor is NFT the copyright itself; holders who own NFT do not necessarily own physical works, copies of digital works, and corresponding intellectual property rights

• Using CC0 to generalize a project that "empowers the people" is not necessarily an accurate expression; in the end we have to go back to the contractual relationship between the creator and the holder to verify the original expression of meaning text

• CC0 in the general context is no longer CC0 in the traditional sense, it is a new consensus on copyright and open source in the web3. You need to know that mfers has already jumped out of the old framework, "doing a grand experiment in the new world of Web3"

• We started chatting from CC0, and the final thing we want to talk about is actually the issue of legal confirmation and decentralization of NFT. However, in the end we found that instead of resorting to established legal rules, which may lead to overfitting, it is better to examine the contractual relationship between different subjects and the rule innovation within our capabilities

• But one thing is clear, as an NFT holder, you must have the proof of "owning the unique NFT"

• Related interests: I am also an mfers holder, which is in line with the principle of personal entry. Welcome to discuss together

Last week, the news that BAYC parent company YugaLabs acquired CryptoPunks and MeebitsIP and some NFTs aroused heated discussions in the circle, and "CC0" was repeatedly mentioned in the discussion about the distribution of copyrights between project parties and holders.

Mfers must still remember that sleepless night not long ago. Sartoshi mentioned in "what are mfers", "The advantage of giving NFT a CC0 license is that the creator has opened up the intellectual property rights of the work, and anyone can use it to make anything they want (such as two Create NFTs for the first time, make goods, etc.)... I decided to let mfers do the same, and do a grand experiment in the new world of Web3".

An important question is, when we talk about CC0, are we really using its original meaning? In the process of dissemination of a legal concept, subtle changes have actually taken place in specific scenarios.

first level title

CC0: Only the copyright enters the public domain, other rights are not waived

image description

CC0 protocol icon

CC0 specifically points to an agreement text, which is used to specifically describe what the copyright owner has given up and how much he has given up to the public. CC0 has a standard text. If you are interested, you can go to CC's official website to read the full text. I have attached the link at the end of the article. Here are just a few key points for you to read.

(1) First of all, CC0 actively clarifies that the rights waived by the copyright owner are limited and are "copyright and related rights", such as the rights to reproduce, perform, disseminate, perform, display and translate the work.

(2) Secondly, CC0 negatively clarifies that CC0 does not involve trademark rights or patent rights owned by the copyright owner, and the above rights will not be waived, assigned, authorized or otherwise affected by this statement.

Maybe everyone will understand after writing this, the so-called CC0 is the creator telling everyone that I have given up the copyright in a general agreement, and the copyright I gave up has entered the public domain (public domain), and all People can use it freely; but trademark rights or patent rights or rights that I have not mentioned do not mean that the declaration of CC0 must be abandoned and entered the public domain.

There is a sentence in the copyright law: "Information wants to be free", information is naturally free, and the nature of information determines that it can naturally flow freely.

If there is no copyright law, once the works created by the creators are disseminated as information, it is difficult to control them by themselves. If others copy them, the creators will not be able to get paid for their creations; To encourage cultural and artistic creation and social progress, rely on artificially formulated legal policies to turn "flowing information" into "legal property" - intellectual property rights.

At the same time, in order to avoid the monopoly of intellectual property rights caused by excessive protection and hinder social progress, the law has been balancing the distribution of rights and interests among different subjects. Therefore, when certain conditions are met, many works will automatically enter the public domain ; At the same time, creators voluntarily give up their rights and put information back into the free-flowing world, which is also a main situation for works to enter the public domain.

So you may realize that the "CC0" we usually say is accurate in general, mainly ignoring the rights (trademark rights, etc.) that creators may retain under the CC0 agreement. In fact, what is deliberately reserved is what the counterparty should pay attention to. It defines the boundaries of rights.

So do BAYC and mfers apply to CC0 as everyone said, and do they also have reservations?

first level title

BAYC: It can be used for commercial use, provided that you must be an NFT holder

In fact, YugaLabs did not copy the CC0 agreement template. It is speculated that it asked a lawyer to write a set of declaration clauses. It seems that the legal language is very fancy. To some extent, they show to the greatest extent what a mature project party can transfer to the holder's rights distribution system.

I have also attached the link to the original article. You can take a look. I believe this template can become one of the standard protocol samples for the NFT session.

(1) First of all, BAYC affirms that you "own NFT", and "own the underlying work of NFT, Boring Ape"-this is very, very, very important, and we will talk about why it is important later.

(2) BAYC did not explicitly "abandon" any rights, nor did it mention any rights to enter the public domain, BAYC only mentioned YugaLabs"Grant" (grant ("grant") can be understood as I have not given up my rights, but I permit you to use)The holder has the right to use it free of charge for personal use and commercial use, andRestricted to true NFT holdersThis right is only possible, and the premise is that the holder can maintain compliance all the time.

I believe that everyone can feel that the discourse systems of CC0 and BAYC statements are obviously different from the text comparison. If CC0 means that part of the rights of the work has entered the public domain, what BAYC has done is more like a "favorite fan" and has nothing to do with anyone other than the holder.

So in this sense, BAYC is definitely not CC0, but he has taken a big step forward.

So can the holder say that he has the copyright of BAYC? Yes, there are some of them, those written in the statement.

However, if the image of the NFT owned by the holder is used by others without permission, does the holder have the right to directly defend the rights and file an infringement lawsuit? I don’t know, it’s not mentioned in the statement, unless BAYC makes other statements on other occasions, I can only temporarily speculate that BAYC has not authorized the right of “right protection” to the holder.

Some students may have some doubts here, can this kind of unilateral statement of the project constitute a "contract" with the holder? The answer is that most situations can be constituted. And generally, a sentence will be added at the beginning or end of this statement, "If you participate in mint or purchase...you are deemed to agree to the terms" "Agreement to this statement is deemed to be a contractual relationship between the two parties " and other expressions, the wording may be different, but the basic meaning is similar (remember the consent you checked when you downloaded the app);

image description

first level title

mfers: Anyone can use whatever - yes, it's mfer

Let's see how mfers does it (finally!). Sartoshi did not talk about CC0, nor did he make a fancy statement, but only put down a cruel sentence on the mint page:

It is almost possible to type "publicdomain" on the public screen.

Simple and direct, very thorough, no strings attached, no moths or demons.

It doesn't matter if it's simple, as mentioned earlier, this in no way prevents this sentence from forming a "contract" between the creator and the buyer. The simpler the expression, the wider the radiation and the stronger the bottom-up effect.

What we can understand is that after Sartoshi chained his digital works into NFT, this project is completely in the public domain.From this point of view, we can say that mfer is the kind of "CC0" that everyone understands;

At the same time sartoshi did not mention to retain trademark rights or any other rights,From this point of view, mfer is more unreserved than "CC0" in the traditional legal sense;

mfers is not limited to only the holder can use,From this point of view, it is definitely more thorough than BAYC's open source.

So, alsoJust because it is in the public domain, Sartoshi has not actually authorized any intellectual property rights to anyone.

So the next thing mfers want to ask is, so what are we buying?

That's a great question (wry smile). This requires a little callback. The BAYC statement mentioned just now says that the holder owns this own. This is actually an imprecise but important expression.

first level title

When we hold NFT, what rights do we legally have?

If we imagine how NFT is generated and carry out logical deduction, we will find that there may be "three separations" from the creation of a physical work to the buyer holding NFT.

(i) Separation of original physical work and digital reproduction

(ii) Separation of underlying works and NFT

(iii) Separation of Ownership and Intellectual Property Rights

Let’s first imagine in the category of art works (music, movies, and physical certificates are not considered for the time being, because those are more complicated). m” (original version).

Next, Xiaosar chose to copy and store his original work as a digital work and store it, we call it "Xiaom" (digital).

At this point the first separation is complete, "Little m" (digital) exists as a reflection of "Little m" (original version) in the digital world.

Next, small sar maps the generated hash value of "small m" (number) on the chain through cryptographic means to form a unique digital proof, that is, the NFT ontology - at this time " Compared with NFT, "small m" (digital) becomes the underlying work that is mapped. NFT has become the cryptographic expression of the underlying works on the chain.The second separation is also done.

If you buy NFT, you will ask: Did I buy "Little m" (original version)? No; did I get the "little m" (number)? emm...No unless the creator also makes a statement, promising to buy NFT at the same time, it can be delivered to you (original version) and/or (digital), as long as he actually made such a declaration of meaning.

But if he doesn't commit, then...you just bought an NFT.

Although we can copy almost any digital work, there is only one NFT that was cast in the electronic world for the first time——And "owning" needs to be able to be proved. When "owning" is recorded on the blockchain and guaranteed by smart contracts, there is a proof of ownership that no one can copy.

How to understand the so-called third separation "separation of ownership and intellectual property rights"?

In intellectual property law, obtaining ownership of the material carrier does not mean enjoying the intellectual property carried by the material carrier. For example, after Sar created "Little m" (the original version), he was accidentally stolen by a thief when he showed it on the street. The picture has the intellectual property rights of Xiaosar.

Similarly, after the NFT of the work, the NFT is the material carrier of the work on the blockchain. The work exists on the blockchain by attaching to the NFT, and the holder holds the NFT, and does not of course enjoy the rights and interests of the NFT. Pointing to the intellectual property rights of the work (it seems a bit difficult to understand, anyway, remember that ownership and intellectual property rights are two different things!).So the third separation is the separation of the two legal concepts themselves.

first level title

Legal rules vs. web3 consensus

I believe you must have felt awkward. In the world of web3.0, NFT is based on blockchain technology and smart contracts, writing a new story in the way brands connect consumers. The brave adopt a rule that is difficult to perfectly nest directly with the current legal systems such as property rights and intellectual property rights, but it makes us lack the grip that can give us a sense of security in the legal world.

This too can partly be attributed to legal lags. But this hysteresis is precisely the ancient wisdom left by the legal predecessors, which makes the legal system like a pair of modest and gentle hands. He will not take the initiative to attack. He respects the rights of both parties. Consensus, maintain sufficient respect for free will; he is also like the old man who was laughed at by everyone, but still deliberately slows down to always be one or two steps behind the times, he just wants to ensure that the bottom The long-term stability of the rules, rather than chasing temporary rationality.

If the law reserves space for us to innovate, if the Bitworld gives us the opportunity to recreate consensus, "no prohibition is freedom", whether it is BAYC or mfers, both BAYC and mfers have made innovations in copyright rules. One small step, this may be a giant leap for web3.0.

The emergence of a completely public domain project like mfers makes it impossible for everyone to have specific rights to digital works. Questioning voices are asking whether someone will "arbitrage" through the current legal system without an owner behavior?

Of course, in fact, the same thing has been happening in the non-web3 world. Intellectual property hooligans have always existed with the development of modern business. The greatest companies in the world have also experienced or are enduring intellectual property litigation troubles caused. But you can still see people and organizations who are making various attempts one after another.

The current non-consensus in various discussions around CC0 and public domain may come from a deeper consensus. I also thank sartoshi for using a seemingly "non-consensus" bold operation to regain the "consensus" that may have been ignored or forgotten by people before.

So, are we choosing to be brave enough?

After all, what we do, "nothing like the earth to springmore difficult."

References

References

• whataremfers—sartoshi(miror.xyz)

• Creative Commons legal text

• BAYC(boredapeyachtclub.com)

• BoredApeYachtClub:TheCaseforLicensedCommercialUseRights|byeconomist|MediumTencent Research Institute: A comprehensive analysis of the concept of NFT, Technical Principles and Property Legal Issues-Carbon Chain Value (cvalue.cn)Zhang Yunfan: Counter-intuitive and non-consensus (qq.com)

• Wang Qian: "Copyright Law", Renmin University of China Press, 2015